|
|
Posted by Mattinglyfan on 10/06/53 11:45
"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1eb1f6d977db26a198a493@news.nabs.net...
> Mattinglyfan (nospam@bigmommashouse.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> > It's worse than that. *All* the PSP games there seem to get over 50%,
>> > because until they have enough ratings, they don't get a number (likely
>> > to make sure a first rating that is low won't show up as "this game
>> > sucks"). So, 70% is really closer to "half the people like it, half
>> > don't".
>> >
>>
>> Do you know what you are even talking about? I already pointed out quite
>> a
>> few games (6) with over 87% that have more than 60 ratings. WTF would
>> bring
>> you to to the conclusion that 70% is closer to "half the people like it,
>> half don't".
>
> When the lowest composite rating for *any* game at gamerankings.com is
> 50%,
> that means that no games that completely suck are being reviewed by
> anybody. So, 50% becomes "this is the worst possible game that anybody
> would ever buy for PSP".
>
Yes but the fact of the matter is that the lowest composite score on the
site is not 50%. So a PSP game that receives a 50% is still better than a
PS2 game that receives a 40%
Superman 64 received a 21%
Charlie's Angels got a 23.9%
Torino 2006 received a 40.6%
> Then, when a game scores 70% in the composite, that means that about half
> the reviewers thought it was less than "70% good". Since 50% is the worst
> score anybody gives, that means that 70% is just average for all the games
> released for PSP. If a review ends up with a score of less than
> "average",
> it's tough to claim the reviewer really liked the game (when *good* games
> regularly get scores of much higher than the average of 70%).
>
> --
> Jeff Rife |
> | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/Macarena.gif
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|